Say Anything Blog

Reporters who publish leaked information should face criminal charges and should be compelled to divulge the source from which the got the information.

I think reporters should be allowed to report leaked information.  They should, however, make it clear that the it is leaked info and isn’t neccessarily fact.

Criminal charges for reporting?  That slaps the bill of rights in the face.  Civil suites are fine, but criminal charges are way too overboard.

Maybe I should have been clearer.  I think reporters should face criminal charges if they report leaked information that was, by law, illegal for the leaker to, well, leak.

I do not want reporters reporting our state secrets.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The problem is, politicians tend to classify that which is embarrassing or what they don’t want made public.

Example: The Pentagon Papers.  It was a classified document but did it betray any state secrets? No. What it did contain was the Pentagon’s top level assessment that VN couldn’t be won.

Good points Rob and so is Jadegold’s.  Its a fine line on what should be considered state secrets.  But it seems to me that the real problem is the people who are leaking the information to the reporters.

Sorry, but leaking and whistleblowing is and has been far too important to the principles of a democratic society that placing any restrictions on it would be counterproductive.

Given the fact the Government already possesses far too much power to discourage leakers and whistleblowers now---they don’t need more.

The problem is Jadegold, leaking and whistleblowing are not the same thing. Whistleblowing is call the organization out when they have done something illegal or otherwise unethical, and usually (but not always) it happens after trying to address the problem within the system. Whistleblowers aren’t always anonymous.

Leaking is just a cheap political trick, done by partisan hacks that can’t stand by their actions. And yes, it’s very bad for government, and the public at large. There are some things are enemies, both foreign and domestic, don’t need to know. Ought not to know.

So I’d agree on the importance of whistleblowing, but not on leaking. ‘Taint the same animal.

Re: governmental approval of the news.
I live in Laos, they have that here. I can assure you that it’s a really bad idea.

Leaking = Sandy “Docks in his Socks” Berger. 

Whistleblowing = being honest and calling someone to task; righting a wrong.

Sorry, Seth, but you’re wrong; leaking and whistleblowing are the same thing.  And both can be done anonymously or not.

And I’ll fully admit both leaking and whistleblowing can be done for non-altruistic motives.  For example, a disgruntled employee may blow the whistle on his employer because he didn’t get a promotion or some such.  And leaking can be done very selectively to provide a message that is very much out of context.

But, for the most part, both have historically provided value in checking the power of Government.  I can provide numerous examples where justice was done only because of a leaker or a whistleblower.  Here’s one: when a gun turret exploded aboard the USS IOWA, the US Navy devised an explanation that the mishap that killed 45 sailors was the result of a gay romance gone bad.  Fortunately, enough sailors realized this explanation was nonsensical and leaked contradictory evidence that led to the real cause.

Nope JadeGold, you’re wrong on this one…

Let’s suppose that the Government has a new device that allows us to secure the ports.  Leaking that information may be harmful to the union.  This is, clearly, independent from “whistle blowing”

What never ceases to amaze me is how the left finds a conservative bias in the media, while the right finds a liberal bias.  Sadly, I think you are both right (just on different channels).  While I don’t agree with many of your opinions, I respect them just the same.  Civility is the hallmark of a true democracy (after all that messy revolutionary stuff).

It appears I screwed something up. In the above comment, the it should read:

Leak [verb]: to deliberately give secret information to a newspaper, television company etc

Oops.

Jadgold, from the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (emphasis added):

Whistle-blower [noun]: someone who tells people in authority or the public about dishonest or illegal practices at the place where they work

Leak [verb]: to deliberately give secret information to a newspaper, television company etc

I’ll grant that people use them interchangably, but arguably they ought not to be. The key difference is between ‘dishonest or illegal practices’ and ‘secret information’. To which it could possibly be argued that, presumably, dishonest or illegal practices are secret, but the obvious retort is that not all secrets are illegal or dishonest.

So I stand by my initial comments, and I agree with you in principle that whistleblowing is a vital part of our civic engagement and life. However, I part ways with you if you insist that all secrets should be within the purview of the public. Some things simply don’t need to be , ought not to be, known by everyone.